O.N. JUDY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the 2nd petitioner in W.P. (C). No. 21571/2011, who is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Briefly stated, the facts relevant are: The appellant was appointed as a U.P.S.A. under the 4th respondent in a leave vacancy for the period from 10.1.1996 to 29.3.1996. Subsequently, her services were approved with effect from 1.6.1998. Seniority was also fixed among herself and the others who were also appointed on that day, adopting age as the criterion, as prescribed in Rule 37 of Chapter XIV -A KER. The appointment for the period from 10.1.1996 to 29.3.1996 was not approved by the departmental authorities and was later approved by Ext. P2 order dated 23.4.2010 pursuant to Ext. P4(a) direction of the Government of Kerala. That approval was objected to by another teacher and finally, the Government issued Ext. P16 order dated 29.7.2011 cancelling the approval.

(2.) AS a result, the appellant had to content with the seniority as assigned by the Government based on the approval of her service with effect from 1.6.1998. It was this controversy and the consequent dispute regarding the seniority, which was raised in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge upheld Ext. P16 and dismissed the Writ Petition. This appeal is against the said judgment.

(3.) HOWEVER , while examining this issue and passing Ext. P16 order, the Government does not appear to have adverted to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in Deepa Augustine v. Geetha Alex [2008 (2) KLT 771 (SC)], which lays down the principle that in making promotions under Rule 43 of Chapter XIV -A of the KER, subject requirement should be strictly followed. On this basis, it is contended before us that since protected teachers, who were available to be recalled, were H.S.A. (Maths) and H.S.A. (Natural Science), they could not have been recalled and accommodated against a vacancy of H.S.A. (Social Science) and that therefore the appointment of Smt. Swarnamma in the vacancy of H.S.A. (Social Science) was perfectly legal. The learned counsel therefore contends that as a consequence, the appointments of Smt. Sheeba and the appellant also were perfectly legal.